Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations
Nominations without objections Nominations with objections Galaxy class model Several [[Galaxy class model|studio models of the Galaxy-class]] were created for Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek Generations, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Enterprise. Two differently sized physical studio models were initially constructed for The Next Generation, to be joined by an intermediate sized one at a later stage. Advances in computer technology resulted in CGI model versions of the class being introduced, first in Generations, and subsequently during the run of Deep Space Nine for use in that series and beyond. Apart from these several specialty models were also constructed of the Galaxy-class to fulfill specific functions when the need for those arose. When it came time to design a new starship Enterprise for The Next Generation, history did not repeat itself. Where Matt Jefferies had to produce hundreds of sketches to come up with the design direction for the original USS Enterprise, the main design work for the exterior of the USS Enterprise-D was done long before another Star Trek television series had even been considered. ---- Incredibly detailed article; Sennim has created another article that just demands to be featured. - 00:24, December 22, 2011 (UTC) :Just some comments for the moment (although I might choose to elevate them to proper opposition): I feel the article is very hard to read due to its use of inline-italics for quotes. Quotes formatted like this make up big parts of the article, and huge italicized paragraphs are just too hard to follow. There's also a different quote formatting in use, which is indented/block in normal font. I think the article needs to be copyedited so that all "bigger" quotes are formatted according to that second style, and only short sentence fragments remain as inline quotes. I'd like to read through the article after this has been changed and then decide on the actual content. However, two things that are immediately apparent are 1) no image at the article top (one should be moved there), and 2) the overall article length. I wonder if this isn't actually too long already, and should be split in two or more articles about subtopics. -- Cid Highwind 11:04, December 22, 2011 (UTC) ::It is a bit long, IMO. --Defiant 12:30, December 22, 2011 (UTC) :::I could see splitting this up into a few articles; one about the general history of the design, and articles about the construction of the various types of models. The general history article could then contain links to the latter articles. I think that if that was done, they could all be FA's.--31dot 12:40, December 22, 2011 (UTC) I've done a pass at the quotes, and moved one of the images to the top (waiting on feedback before updating the blurb), but I once again feel that it needs to be pointed out that there is no size requirement or limitation for FAs. That said, I just don't see a way to break this article up without introducing more problems than the perceived one about the length, and it's not like we're going to start breaking up other long articles like James T. Kirk or Worf any time soon. - 16:59, December 22, 2011 (UTC) :But every time you point out that there is no "size requirement/limitation", I point out that there still is a difference between being comprehensive and being so detailed that no one ever will read through the article in one run - or at least it feels as if I'm repeating myself here, too. I have, right now, just read up to the end of section 3 (of 10!) and it already feels as if I read at least two complete articles. -- Cid Highwind 17:34, December 22, 2011 (UTC) :Some more stuff (just sections 1-3): :#This image is misplaced in the article, the text explaining it being at a lower position than the image itself. Perhaps needs a rearrangement of text if the new location clashed with other images. :#According to the text, this image is supposed to show the "real colors" of the model - but there are three images, each one displaying different colors. Something like "(upper left)" (at least I guess that's the correct one) needs to be added. :#In the six-foot model subsection "Use", there's a big block of text formatted as background note. What's the reason for this, and shouldn't the text just be formatted like the rest? It's a real-world article, after all. :#Just preceding that bgnote, there's a quote in which someone states that a ball of tape was "this big", apparently showing something with his hands - there should be a note about the actual size shown. :-- Cid Highwind 17:52, December 22, 2011 (UTC) :Section 4 (Two-foot model): :#This image is described as showing "test-lighting" of the two-foot model - but it seems as if it actually is a comparison between two different models. Needs explanation. :#This image is described as showing just the matte painting of the starbase interior - but it actually is a composite shot with the six-foot model already. Needs either a different image or a rewrite of the description - and in any case, should not be located in a section about the two-foot model if it shows the six-footer. -- Cid Highwind 18:12, December 22, 2011 (UTC) :*In section 5 ("Filming the six and two-foot models", subsection "stock footage"), there's a reference to Robert Legato making Image G "shoot a rock" - out of nowhere and unexplained. Not sure if "the rock" is supposed to be the stellar core fragment that destroyed the Tsiolkovsky or something else - there should either be an explanation, or that bit be trimmed off. Thinking about the whole section, I believe that would be a good candidate for removal from this article (either to the articles of the different effect companies, or to a completely new one like Galaxy class effect shots). I'll stop at that point for the time being, and oppose based on the problems listed so far. More later (or during the holidays :)). -- Cid Highwind 18:42, December 22, 2011 (UTC) ::::Some preliminary comments. First, I don't really like the lead-in to this article. I'd prefer a sentence that gives a better overview of the article as a whole. (More like Constitution class model) ::::Second - I'm a bit confused by the bit about . The text and the quote regarding what the effects people did don't seem to match up. Did they use firecrackers or timed charges to blow up the model? If it was both, this needs to be clarified.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 00:04, December 23, 2011 (UTC) @Cleanse: Preliminary pass at rewording the intro, feel free to make further changes. @Cid: I wouldn't consider this article to be so large as to make it unreadable, as I've read it in one go just a few days ago. As I've said already, I see splitting the article to be a solution that's worse than the "problem" since most of information at the suggested split points overlaps greatly. That said, we should get this up to snuff, I've asked Sennim for help with some of the issues involving info I don't have, and then see if the article needs splitting, with temp pages and all that jazz. Anyway, here's some responses to the section 1-3 stuff: 1) I've moved the image down, but it's placement was correct before I introduced the blockquote format, there may be a few other images that need to simply be moved around the quotes as they are now. 2) You're guess is as good as mine on that, since my screen sucks. I've added the suggested text for now though. 3) As for the use of the bginfo template, I've read that to mean the info inside is a bit of a tangent to the rest of the section, though it could be formatted differently I guess. I'd rather give a change for Sennim to respond to that first though. 4) I'll get to checking the DVD shortly unless someone beats me to it. - 03:21, December 23, 2011 (UTC) :More stuff: :#There's a custom gallery in subsection #Build that should be turned into a proper one. :#There are many "collage" type images, such as this one. Not all of them seem to be collages in their respective sources, and we have a guideline to not merge individual images where possible. So, all of these should be checked whether they can sensibly be split again. :#Way down in the CGI-section, there's this statement: "As Digital Muse had only the four-foot model at their disposal as reference, their model was endowed with the original color scheme of the Galaxy class, light blue-gray with duck-egg blue highlights, instead of the color-scheme applied to the six-foot model at ILM." - yet in the section about the 6-footer, it states that "One color is a duck egg blue, and the other is kind of a sky blue" and in the section about the 4-footer, it states that "the base hull color was shifted to a lighter blue-, almost white-gray tone". So, there may be a mix up in the description of what color scheme exactly the CGI model has (and if it is indeed the 4-footer's color scheme, it can't be the "original one" because the 4-footer came later). :In regard to the split issue, I'm going to reply on User_talk:Sennim#Galaxy_class_model_FA_nomination, too - for the moment, I still think that a split should at least be attempted on a temp page - but if this isn't done, the very least that must happen is a better structuring of the page, so that all individual info can be found without reading everything from top to bottom - "accessibility" is an important factor for our articles, after all. -- Cid Highwind 11:07, December 23, 2011 (UTC) ::First pass on fixing some of the objections raised: ::Cleanse's objections: ::*Expanded on Archduk's lead-in and moved some of the text to serve as an introductory note for the "design"-section. ::*"firecracker"-note, replace with more neutral "explosives" as firecrackers was not used in direct quote. ::Cid's objections: ::*"real colors"-note; adjusted caption ::*"bgnote"; This actually was something I've put a lot of thought into. It might have been added to for example the filming-section in proper "format", but it would have been somewhat "orphaned" IMO. I've chosen to put it were it is for the reasons of providing a counterpoint to all the efforts that went into the refurbishment of the 6-footer for the film plus I felt it was better at his place there as it was specifically pertaining to that film. I've chosen the format though, as it was, as Archduk so succinctly put it a bit off-tangent, a bit of a side-step of the flow of the section if you will...I still very much feel it is at its right place...On a sidenote, I see Cid's point in using a BG-template in a BG section within an in-universe POV article, but I can not see anything wrong using the template in a production POV article... ::*"this big"-note; added explanatory note ::*"Starbase 74 composite of stock footage and matte-painting"-note; Adjusted caption. I believe the text should remain where it is as it is describing the resolution of the whole disputed Enterprise-Starbase scene that started with the use of the 2-footer. ::Will return later when time allows--Sennim 14:35, January 3, 2012 (UTC) ::::Thanks for addressing my comments Sennim. However, I agree that the bginfo template shouldn't be used in this article. There's no difference really between a real-world article and a "Background Information" section – they fall under the same "real-world" point of view. ::::If the information is truly off-tangent, then it should be placed elsewhere. If the information belongs there, then it should be formatted like normal text. You can always rephrase it to make it fit in better with the surrounding text.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 02:23, January 5, 2012 (UTC) ::Second pass on fixing some of the objections raised: ::*The bg-template issue as raised by both Cid and Cleanse; Concede, integrated text in main body as per suggestion of Cleanse. ::*Image G "shoot a rock"-note; Reworded the sentence as to be less of an "out of the blue" experience. Stand by my decision to have it stand where it is as Image G is referenced throughout the article, and a proper introduction is warranted, much as ILM is properly introduced. I even believe it is necessary as there are, as I've discovered during my research, many people out there, who still are under the impression that all E-D footage were filmed by ILM. I also oppose a split-off as this section is a specific "use" of the two models (in the article the mention of the 2-footer was specifically tied in conjuncture with the "rock"-quote). ::*CGI-section statement-note; correct assessment, adjusted wording... ::*"test-lighting" of the two-foot model; This is a nasty one, it is NOT a comparison between different models but bonafide representations of the 2-footer at different angles. Yet the representations in the article of Starlog (magazine) were spread over two pages, too large for my scanner to get in one pass, so I had to resort to some serious "cut-and-paste" (hence the crease down the middle) as well as to some photoshopping as the article texts run up to the outlines of the model in the photos. That being said, and by now being aware that this is apparently being frowned upon, I feel fully justified to have taken this course of action, and come up with representable imagery, as these are the ONLY close-up behind-the-scenes imagery of the 2-footer published anywhere... ::*Re-shuffled and re-worded some of the main sections to assuage Cid's concerns about "accessibility" of the article. ::Sennim 19:20, January 6, 2012 (UTC) ::::Sorry to continue to nitpick ;-) but another thing I'm confused about is this use of "rem:" in quotes. I know plenty of things could mean, but I've never seen it used in quotes like that, nor can I find anything online.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 03:20, January 8, 2012 (UTC) ::No worries :), replaced abbreviations with fuilly written term "remark"..--Sennim 10:32, January 9, 2012 (UTC) At this point I would ask that any remaining issues already mentioned be restated, excepting the page split for now, as I'm not sure if some things were missed or not. - 20:17, January 9, 2012 (UTC) :In the order in which I've initially brought them up: :#The misplaced image is still misplaced - additionally, we should make sure that there are no left-floating thumbnails combined with indented text (like quotes). Those don't mix well. :#The one bgnote I brought up directly was removed - but there are still similar cases, which should probably be handled alike. :#There's still no explanation for the weird look of the two-footer "test-lighting" images I think. Has been explained here, but probably needs to be explained in the context of the article. :#Still not sure about placement of a six-footer image (matte painting/starbase interior image) in the two-footer section. :#There's now a reference about "the rock" actually being the stellar core fragment - can this really be confirmed, or has this just been added to the article based on my speculation? Asking because this doesn't really look like a rock. If it can be confirmed, maybe add a direct quote instead of just explaining it? :#The one collage I brought up was removed, but there are still several others - I think I counted 11 collage images on the page. :#The CGI color reference issue hasn't been cleared up, I think. :-- Cid Highwind 21:55, January 9, 2012 (UTC) Regarding number 1, that image is not misplaced, it is at the top of the paragraph where the information is presented. The difference in formatting for the quotes doesn't change that, though if you still feel it needs to be moved further down, you're welcome to figure out a way to make it look good. The same gos for left images with quotes. I think the styling is fine as is, since it doesn't reduce readability and make the article look more interesting; not to mention that stringing more than two or more images together on one side just looks "lazy". - 22:35, January 9, 2012 (UTC) Removed the last bgnote formatting (#2), updated blurb. - 22:46, January 9, 2012 (UTC) :Calm down - you specifically asked for those points to be repeated, so I don't see the need for that "why don't you do it yourself?" spiel being thrown back at me. Of course, I can work on some of the layout-only issues myself as long as that doesn't get me another round of "but it was supposed to be like it was before" in return - but please don't claim that an image placement that destroys deliberate indentation of a text block is "fine styling". -- Cid Highwind 22:52, January 9, 2012 (UTC) That wasn't suppose to read as angry, I'm just not sure how else I'm suppose to say make the change you want since the change I already made apparently wasn't enough. I can't make the change since I'm not you, because I don't see a reason to misplace or move the next image down over this, and the image is where I'' think it should be. I'm also not a big fan of block quotes to begin with, since I find them to be overly distracting, so yes, my ''opinion is that the styling there was fine because the quote was still clearly indented. - 23:14, January 9, 2012 (UTC) :OK, then. I moved all of the images clashing with indented text for me, and tried to make sure that they are not misplaced. All of them should appear as close to their in-text explanation as possible, and if a slight deviation is necessary, then after their in-text explanation, to make sure that a top-to-bottom reader will already know the context of all images he encounters. If the text really was properly indented even with a left-aligned image, then that must be a specialty of your browser - because it doesn't look like that for me in both Opera and IE. -- Cid Highwind 23:27, January 9, 2012 (UTC) I'm using Firefox with a couple of extensions, for what it's worth. That said, I can't actually seem to find the collage guideline right now. I thought it was at MA:IMAGE, but it doesn't seem to be. So based on what I think it was about, being able to use the images elsewhere, how many of the collage images do we seriously think will be used elsewhere? The closeup shots of the modification parts for "All Good Things..." seem pretty much "this page only" (most of the comparison shots do as well), and I think it would be more of a problem than a solution to have each of those as a separate image. - 23:40, January 9, 2012 (UTC) :Can't find the guideline, either - but in any case, avoiding unnecessary collages is not just an issue of reusability. It's also an issue of accessibility. Take this collage as an example. The two images to the right are nothing special - random guys painting random parts of the well-known 1701-D. Perhaps there is something special about it, but how should we know? There's no explanation, and no specific context in the article, so we're left with "I guess these people are building the model". Actually, the article wouldn't be worse if those two images were removed completely - but we can't do that, because they are part of a collage at the moment. At the same time, the two images to the left are interesting - but somehow lost in the collage: "Hey, are those curved thingamajigs neon lights, or just structural parts of the model? And why is the saucer painted like a blue/white chessboard?" - there are whole sections about lighting the model, or making sure it doesn't just fall apart, or about what exactly an "Aztec pattern" is - yet these images aren't used there, because they are part of a "here are some images of a specific model"-collage. Also, there's not even an explanation for the individual images - and, to be honest, there's not enough space in the image description box to fully explain what's going on in four different pictures. Last but not least, if we're having image collages, we should at least make sure that the individual images are aligned properly. In the above collage, the "cross" that is spearating the images has at least three different line widths, which doesn't look too good. -- Cid Highwind 10:33, January 10, 2012 (UTC) Inspection pod An inspection pod was a type of shuttlepod used by Starfleet in the 22nd century. Several inspection pods were used at Earth's orbiting spacedocks in the 2150s. The NX-class starship Enterprise NX-01 was equipped with at least one inspection pod stored in a cargo bay during the first couple of years the ship was in service. ---- Self-nomination; I've exhausted ways I can think of to improve this article. The only issues I'm unsure about (and they're both relatively minor ones) are the naming of the page (see the article's talk page) and whether the history section should encompass a description for each of the times when inspection pods are shown in the distance of Earth spacedock scenes. Other than possibly doing that, I really can't think of any more ways to upgrade the article. --Defiant 17:30, January 3, 2012 (UTC) *'Oppose'. This article seems to be about each pod seen instead of the "class". Individual pods should be covered on an Unnamed inspection pods page, assuming the name change suggested on the talk page is done, or on pages like Orbital 6. There is also no section with links to these pages either, and there should be cause it's nice if you don't want to scan the entire text to find the links. Sections describing the interior, exterior, and specs (if any) should be included as well. Pretty much the entire in universe part needs to be redone to be consistent with other articles of this type. - 13:11, January 4, 2012 (UTC) :I haven't read the article yet, but the same problem Archduk3 identified in the article is also apparent in the blurb. Its last paragraph seems to be about the specific pd "Orbital 6", not about the vehicle class. Independent of that, it also doesn't seem to be the most important/general information about the topic. The blurb should be somewhat of a "teaser" for the article, so information of somewhat "lesser importance" should probably not be in the blurb but only in the article. -- Cid Highwind 13:57, January 4, 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. They're very informative and therefore much appreciated. :) I still have uncertainty about whether the name should be "orbital inspection pod" or just "inspection pod". The function of the vehicle class isn't always orbital and it's called simply an "inspection pod" in , though the script of "Broken Bow" commonly uses the name "orbital inspection pod" to refer to Orbital 6, and this term doesn't necessarily contradict the on-screen one. --Defiant 17:51, January 4, 2012 (UTC) I'm aware that the article could benefit from descriptive text about the exterior and interior, but that would be delving into the area of speculation (for example, there are apparently seatbelts inside the pods, though how do we know if they are actually seatbelts or just look like that?!) I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "specs," as there are no established specifications; really, the only functions we know these pods have are the ability to communicate and the capability of short-range (at the least) spaceflight. And I can't really think of much that could be added via text, about the exterior and/or interior, that can't already be seen by looking at the images already on the page. It might just be my lack of experience with this type of article, but I am willing (and trying) to learn. The comments so far have been great and insightful, but some more suggestions/clarification would also be much appreciated. Thanks for the input so far. :) --Defiant 18:27, January 4, 2012 (UTC) ::If you think they just look like seatbelts, you simply say "seatbelt like straps" or something similar. It's not speculation per se to assume that it is a seatbelt because it looks like that; unless we have a reason to think otherwise a chair with straps is a chair with straps, not a personal convenience with force fields. As for the images rendering the text moot, imagine the article without images and then compared it to Type 6 shuttlecraft, Galileo type shuttlecraft, Military shuttle, Type 7 shuttlecraft, Danube class, etc. Images support the text, not eliminate the need for it. - 01:21, January 5, 2012 (UTC) All those vessels have far more facilities than the relatively spartan inspection pods, but I'll have a try at adding some more interior and exterior info to the inspection pod article. So, thanks for the references. Some input on the naming issue would be much appreciated. --Defiant 01:41, January 5, 2012 (UTC) :::"Inspection pod" should be used, if that was the only on-screen name. A check of the transcripts suggests that it was also used in (TUCKER: They've isolated every hull breach, every damaged system. I'll be damned. We scratched the hull right here, a year ago. I bumped it with the inspection pod, remember?) :::–Cleanse ( talk | ) 02:32, January 5, 2012 (UTC) ::I've renamed the page, moved the individual pod info to unnamed inspection pods, summarized that info on the page, and updated the blurb to reflect these changes. I've added a PNA for the tech info for now though, since it still is incomplete. - 00:47, January 8, 2012 (UTC) Really, this page has been under development over a period of years. If there was such a drastic formatting "error" with the article, I honestly think it should likely have been mentioned by now. I don't personally think it is an error; just a difference in opinion in how much leeway should be allowed with the different styles of formatting. But I see there's developed a very rigid way of thinking about that, recently. --Defiant 02:25, January 8, 2012 (UTC) ::And all that's constructive how? If you want to wash your hands of another article instead of following though, go ahead, just make it clear you are doing that. Also, do you check all articles on a regular basis, cause I simply don't have time. - 05:40, January 8, 2012 (UTC) Obviously not the minor changes to all articles, but if another page required such a radical makeover while otherwise being fine or even exemplary, I think it would usually stick out like a sure thumb! I agree that thinking in such rigid terms as to so severely limit the stylistic formatting options isn't constructive, and there's nothing to suggest I want to "wash my hands" of this article. --Defiant 13:21, January 9, 2012 (UTC) *'Oppose': I agree with the way information has been split between this article and Orbital 6/Unnamed inspection pods by Archduk3. However, what's left doesn't seem to be "FA material". At the very least the PNA needs to be resolved and, unless much more information gets added by doing so, some of the section headers need to be removed so that there aren't three of them for slightly more than one paragraph of text. Also, at least one, if not two, of the images currently in the sidebar should be moved to standard thumbnails, so that the sidebar isn't longer than the whole in-universe section of the article. Depending on how that section looks after those changes, I'm willing to rethink my vote - but for the moment, oppose. --Cid Highwind 14:12, January 9, 2012 (UTC) :As an aside: While I prefer short blurbs, I believe that this one is too short for one - and it is the whole in-universe part of the article already. So, there needs to be some more "meat". -- Cid Highwind 14:17, January 9, 2012 (UTC) I personally think that the fact the pna wasn't placed sooner than after FA nomination has a lot to do with this (something I'm admittedly as much to blame for as anyone is!). I agree with the statement "what's left doesn't seem to be 'FA material'." Given the circumstances regarding the pna, I think that's understandable. I'm still interested in this article being as good as it can be, which is why I'm not prepared to just "wash my hands" of it, though I now don't think achieving FA status is a realistic expectation. I'm honestly kicking myself for not realizing the formatting problem, but kudos to others (such as Cid and Archduk) for not only doing so but also attempting to sort out the problem. I hope this post helps clarify my position (for others) a bit more. --Defiant 14:34, January 9, 2012 (UTC) ::The in universe history section could be slightly larger, it just shouldn't be finger to nose detail for every pod seen. Stating what they did at the spacedocks could provide another sentence or two. As for if there's enough article for FA status, I would say there is, since the article doesn't stop when the appendices sections start. We do have things to say about this, just not a whole lot of it is canon right now. The blurb can be updated after the article is further fleshed out, though we could always decided to "feature" the real world info over the in universe info in the blurb. Just a thought. - 20:17, January 9, 2012 (UTC) Well, some information could still be added about the number of windows and the writing on the side(s) of the vessel. Also, maybe the info from "Shockwave" could be added to the historical section. IIRC, that wasn't just in the normal canon universe but also in an alternate timeline. Plus, it's about some inspection pods collectively, not just a specific unnamed one. --Defiant 22:57, January 9, 2012 (UTC)